Request For Reevaluation Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bureaucracy

Well kinda. I was perusing the blogs today (you know I read all of you every day right? So write good.) and ran across a good post by DaddyBear. It was a comment there that got me thinking, always a dangerous thing. My hair is still smouldering. What hair I have. It was a very small fire. Go read the post and comments and you'll know which one I'm talking about.

I've written about using the word Fire in a theater before so my views on fatuous arguments is pretty well known. Now the ridiculous equating of licensing drivers and gun owners is being tossed around again. Man, how I wish this idiocy would just go away. Or the idiots. Either way.

First of all there's nothing in the Constitution about driving. It's considered a privilege and not a right. In most every state I know about when you're licensed to drive you also agree to provide a sample of your blood (Ouch), breath (Whew) and/or urine (Icky) when so requested by competent law enforcement authority having probable cause to take you forthwith to the hoosegow for driving while under the influence of intoxicating substances (or having reasonable suspicion to suspect you of the same). It's called Implied Consent and it's a wicked pisser (Yes, I do watch too much TV). You are subject to separate penalties for violation of that in addition to anything that might be levied on the DUI charge. Think cash and roadside trash detail here. Drivers Licenses can be suspended for a wide variety of things ranging from excessive moving violations (slow down you damn kids!) to being uninsured. Go to a DMV hearing sometime. Judicial they ain't. The hearing officer can basically take your license away for most anything they want and there's little or no appeals process. Do try to not piss off the hearing officer. They're grouchy. Do get a lawyer (though in many cases a lawyer isn't allowed. How's that due process working out for ya?) and maybe a payday load cause you're gonna need lots of both kids. All that is because a drivers license isn't considered property. You have no expectation nor property right to it. It's a privilege and the state can basically remove yours about any time they take a hankering to and they usually take a hankering basically anytime the shark is feeling peckish. Which is always. You can even lose your drivers license for being in arrears on your child support payments. Because they can, that's why.

On the other hand guns are a property right and their possession is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Rights versus Privileges. See how that works? Requiring the licensing of gun owners is akin to requiring me to get a religion license before I can possess a Bible. Or a Torah. Or a Qur'an. It's an onerous and undue infringement on my right to keep and bear arms and makes such dependent on bureaucratic governmental approval or denial. Someone wants to create a DMV division of the BATFE. Please excuse me whilst I run screaming from the room at the thought. Will I have to parallel park while simultaneously clearing a malfunction on my Sig, reciting the Four Rules and playing 'Spot The Carjacker' with the proctor? What if I fail because the sun was in my eyes and the radio was tuned to that station that only plays Elton John when I only listen to AC/DC when I'm drivey/shooty and I was really thinking about that outfit Lu was wearing earlier and how much I was looking forward to getting home and convincing her to no longer be wearing it (if you know what I mean and I think you do) and my fingers were felling particularly fat and fumbly that day? Will I then have to appear before a hearing officer in DATFMV (Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Motor Vehicles) office to argue my case? What about lawyers? Does Due Process come into play? What constitutes a fair test and pass/fail scores? Who makes my local up the test? Will it be open book? Will I have to touch it? (Get your minds out of the gutter. I was talking about the gun. Perverts). Are there separate tests for rifle, pistol and shotguns? Are silencers and automatics like big rigs? Will I have to fill out a log book and keep track of rounds fired and how much sleep I've had in the last 24 hours of shooting? Who decides all this stuff?

See, here's the thing. Government does what government does. That is regulate everything under the sun and charge fees for applications, licenses and permissions for anything and everything they can sink their bureaucratic teeth into. Subject to petty tyrants bringing their bad days at home to work with them of course. How humiliating is it to find yourself on your knees begging the angry DMV clerk to please accept your paperwork instead of sending you back to Line 73 which currently stretches out the door and down the block with a wait time measured by calendar because you misspelled penis (Hint: It's the answer to question 137. What are you compensating for?)? Who wants more of that? Oh, right.

On the gripping hand, be careful what you wish for. Let me provide an anecdotal example of why this is such a bad idea. besides the obvious "It's unconstitutional Weasel Boy" one of course. Back in the day, when I wore a blue suit and did cool stuff, I used to do traffic enforcement while riding really cool motorcycles and looking like totally bitchin' and stuff. Yeah, I know. I was as hated as Al Gore at Republican Broadcasters convention. Stay with me here for a minute, I do have a point. And no, it's not the one on top of my head. Though my head is remarkably pointy shaped. But enough of that, back to the story. Among those duties was to evaluate drivers that were suspected of...let's just say of being automotively challenged and leave it at that. There was a form to fill out which included the driver's information, my information and why they were being referred. It was called a Request For Reevaluation and could either be Emergency (Great jumpin' Jehoshaphat Margarete, you need to evaluate this guy like yesterday! I mean it! He's a menace! Hey are you listening? AAIIEE!!) and just regular (Whenever you get a free minute there Skippy). Either way the driver was supposed to be called into DMV and actually, you know, have their ability to successfully pilot a four thousand pound motor vehicle on America's highways and byways reevaluated. Hey, it's right there in the form and everything! In 24 years I wrote hundreds of them. Hundreds I tell you. It's surprising how many folks out there have issues driving a car. I mean bouncing off parked cars while careening out of control down the street and nearly running down pedestrians who were minding their own business in their back yards kind of issues with driving. Or maybe not so surprising. I mean, you've been out there. Would you trust those people with your life? I thought not. Anyway. In all those years not a one ever had their license revoked. I never even got called in to DMV for a revocation hearing. I've seen a 93 year old driver hit 14 parked cars and three trees on her way downtown to the Farmer's Market and who had not a single clue anything untoward had occurred. Kept her license. Hell, that was 15 years ago and as far as I know she still has it (and a high deductible insurance policy I'm sure). I had a UPS driver pass out behind the wheel of his Big Brown Truck for reasons unknown and run off the road leaving a path of total destruction in his wake. Yep, kept his license. There were more, oh so depressingly many more. Like the gal who failed to see it and ended up in the middle of Lake El Estero. Had no idea the lake was there in spite of living in that city her whole life. Or the guy who decided the Rec Trail was just a really narrow street and what the hell are all these pedestrians and bicyclists doing in the middle of the damn road!? I've seen trees run right out into the street and then magically teleport themselves, with the car still wrapped around the trunk, right back into the grove. No idea how that happened officer. I swear. Parked cars that suddenly appeared right in front of motorists. Pedestrians who unexpectedly dropped their cloaks on invisibility just as the driver was passing on the sidewalk. The guy...well, you get the idea. None of them ever lost their driving privilege. Nary a one. If you believe my coworkers (and why wouldn't you. They're a great bunch of folks. Why the hate? Oh yeah. That whole ticket thing. Right. My bad.) none of them ever saw a driver suspended either. We may have been wrong on occasion but not every time. My point? Oh right, I was building up to something wasn't I? It's just this. Bureaucracies tend to be capricious and make frustratingly random decisions. There's no rhyme and little reason. Decisions seem to be made by way of Magic 8 Balls, fortune cookies, Ouija Boards and Lunar cycles (Full Moon Madness FTW!!). Anyone on the gun control side who thinks those people can be depended on needs to quit smoking crabgrass. That stuff will rot your brain.

I got just the answer. How about No? That's simple and easily understood, even for those who are logic challenged. I like that word. I may even love it. Short and to the point. No. N. O. Don't be shy, say it with me. No. It just rolls off the tongue. It's satisfying with no aftertaste and none of that next day "Oh Lord, who is this and what have I done?" regret. Those who insist on Conversation, Compromise and Common Sense (The three C's of gun control) should get very used to the idea of hearing it frequently and sometimes vehemently. I am not putting my civil rights, any of them, into the hands of people who think spinning the Big Wheel 'O Hilarious Outcomes is an acceptable method of decision making.

Can I get an Amen from the back row? Thank you brothers and sisters.

Six

We Are The Police And The Police Is Us

With Angus healing and time on my hands whilst I tend to him I need to get back into the fight. I've been mulling this one over for a few days now.

The current gun control, armed teachers and guards in schools, etc. argument misses an important point. Who are the police and what is their primary function?

It is commonly accepted within police circles that Sir Robert Peel is the father of modern policing. He incorporated the principals by which all western police organizations adhere (or at least pay lip service to). Here are the Nine Principals Of Policing as laid out by Peel (emphasis mine):

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
   
   
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
   
   
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
   
   
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
   
   
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
   
   
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
   
   
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence
   
   
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
   
   
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Let's set aside the basic mission of the police for a moment and concentrate on who is ultimately responsible for the safety of persons and property here in America. If you read those Nine principals what I hope strikes you is the idea that our very concept of law enforcement and self defense, aside from residing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rests largely on these ideas, primarily number 7 that I have highlighted. Let's read that again.

The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 

I always get such a warm feeling when I read those words. It's a very large concept for such an innocuous sentence. What Peel was saying is that every citizen is responsible for the enforcement of our laws. Ok. Let's go back to those principals and see what they say about duties and mission.

If we are the police and the police is us then it stands to reason that we are not only responsible for doing our duty to the whole, that is the nation state, by defending it and those weaker citizens who can't defend themselves but also to defend ourselves. It's not just a right, it's the duty of every citizen.

Let's go a step further. In addition to "We are the police and the police is us" I'd add "We are the military and the military is us". We have a Citizen Military including Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard). Throw in that Citizen Militia the Second Amendment talks about and we see that the tools of democracy are supposed to be right where the founders wanted them and the Constitution envisioned them. In the capable grip of the citizenry. We're talking about Weapons here, not the right to protest or speak or even to vote for the representative of our choice. The means of defense of country and self reside where they always have. In the hands of The People. By statutory and customary authority.

Back to the mission of the police and even the military. What are they supposed to do really? They are supposed to prevent crime and disorder in the case of the police and to defend the nation and our vital interests abroad in the case of the military. Note there's no mention of defense of the individual. It's accepted that defense of the whole does in fact render defense to the individual from widespread harm whether from internal or external forces but that's macro. What of the micro? On the individual scale both the founders and those who have shaped our society envisioned that the individual citizen was responsible for their own safety and that of their immediate family and community. Read through Posse Comitatus (Common Law). Here's the money quote;
Posse comitatus is the common law or statute law authority of a County Sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the Hue and Cry". Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.

Nothing extraordinary in any of that of you're an American. The concept of a Posse and assisting a police officer is ingrained in our collective psyches. I've used it myself in my police career without hesitation. Again "We are the Police and the police is us". Talk to Sheriff David Clarke if you think that idea is dead. That's a man I both understand and would work for in a hot second.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that the police have no duty to protect the individual. Go back to the police mission as outlined by Peel. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. The conclusion is both inescapable and obvious. We are individually responsible for our own safety.

What then of guns, the tools of personal protection. If we are indeed the police and the military it stands to reason that the tools available to them are the very tools that must be available to us. We cannot separate the citizen from the cop or soldier because we are them and they are us.

Yet we hear a constant drumbeat of "Only the police and military should have X guns and Y accessories". Ok fine. I'll stipulate that for the sake of argument. All that does is strengthen the Second Amendment argument against Infringement because, as I believe I've written once or twice here, We Are Them. We are the Police and We are the military. We. Us. American Citizens. The sure and certain road to tyranny and a true police state is abrogating this concept and that is precisely what the left is currently trying to do. Make the police and military separate entities from the general citizenry. Us versus Them. Here's proof. In virtually every piece of gun control legislation put forth post 1968 there's a provision exempting active and/or retired law enforcement. It's just another trick to try and divide one group of citizens from another. 

If the modern tools of the police and military are withheld from the People and given only to the select then we have created a system of three classes; Armed, Unarmed and the Elite upon whom no law is enforceable. That's a path to servitude for the majority. Even omitting hot button words like slavery, tyranny, socialism and the like we're still left with one inescapable conclusion. If the People are no longer the police and the military and they are no longer us then loss of essential liberties to those who can wield such force will follow like night after day. Pretending otherwise is either lying or Three Monkeying.

Finally I'd like to remind the "We must do something now" crowd of the last of Sir Robert Peels Principals. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. If that is the standard we hold our police to, and I fervently hope it still is, then I submit that end result we are looking for is the absence (or at least diminution) of crime and acts of violence against the whole of society and not to simply do something, even if it's wrong, in the vain hope we'll hit the right target. Yes, the individual is largely left to his or her own devices but as long as they have the lawful right to defend themselves and the needed tools then we as a free and democratic society have done all that we can. All that we should. Good policing is quiet policing.

It's been proven time and again that gun bans neither reduce nor eliminate criminality but placing the means and trust for defense in the hands of the citizenry does. The current gun ban call put forth by Dianne Feinstein is a case in point. The rules of logic and intent still apply. If the fix doesn't actually work and demonstrably won't be widely obeyed there must be another reason it's being put forth. Incompetence or malicious intent. It's either disingenuous or it's nefarious. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Legislation like this serves only to further sever the already tenuous link between the free citizenry and those who see the Constitution as a nuisance. Between those actively advocating for a police state and those opposed. Between Liberty and Tyranny. It really is just that simple. If the politicians on the left and their enablers really wanted a solution to crime and violence they'd loudly remind us of our duties as citizens and then step back and let us get on with it. Really, we've already gone past the point where the politicians are us and we are them else we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

We are the police and the police is us. Such a simple and beautiful concept. That's what this whole argument really boils down to in my view. Either we are the arbiters of our own fates or we are not. Are we individually sovereign or are we not? That's the only real question that needs to be asked and answered. The rest is a smokescreen, a way to get the camel's nose under the tent and that is the imminent danger. Because sure as hell, once he gets that first taste there's nothing on earth that will get him back out again short of force. I'm still hoping we can avoid that. I really, really am.

I love Peel's Nine Principals. I used to read them constantly at work to remind me of what my job was all about. The connection between me and those I served. Between the cop on the beat and the Minute Man at home. The concept and willingness isn't dead it's just been forgotten by those who damn well should know better. Don't ever forget my friends, we are all Citizen with all those rights and duties incumbent on us. Don't give an inch. Find your inner cop, your inner soldier, your warrior spirit, and defend!

Six

Hitchcock's Holocaust Movie

Robert J. Avrech has a blog named Seraphic Secret. On his header Robert writes this about himself:

Robert J. Avrech: Emmy Award winning screenwriter. Religious Zionist. Republican. Movie fanatic. Gun owner. Helplessly and hopelessly in love with my wife since age nine.

I love that. I only discovered him recently (One of you folks pointed me to him but I can't remember who it was. Please forgive me. I'm getting to that age) and linked to him on my blogroll. He's a brilliant writer, powerful and heartfelt. He also understands why America and Americans need to be armed. He's a supporter of Israel and insofar as I can discern a very good man. If you haven't yet visited his site and read his prose I highly encourage you to do so. You will not be disappointed.

Which leads me to this, his latest post. It's about the Holocaust movie by Alfred Hitchcock. I didn't know he ever made such a movie and I'm guessing many of you didn't either. It's just what you would expect from a film maker of Hitchcock's brilliance. Robert describes it as "...graphic and deeply disturbing. As was intended and as it should be." I can add little to Robert's narrative and I won't embed the movie here. Go visit the link provided and watch it, though I warn you. It is indeed graphic and deeply disturbing but it's worth every second of it's 53 minute run time. Stark and heartrending.

It's also a reminder to all of us who love America and liberty that our freedoms are ever only a hairs breadth from being lost because anyone who thinks the Nazi's were aberrations is simply wrong. We don't love our guns for the sense of power over others the left imagines they engender. We love them because they allow us to intimidate, and at times destroy, the very tyrants the evil side of human nature continues to produce. The current gun control argument isn't about evil rifles or evil magazines it's about evil men and the tyranny they will construct if given the opportunity. Only the true Warrior, girded with his courage and armed with his sword and shield has ever dared face the monster in his lair. Oh Lord in Heaven, I pray we remain a nation of the daring.

Watch the movie and contemplate the words Never Again.

Thank you Robert for the reminder.

Six

Live Blogging the Presidential Speech On Gun Control

Live blogging the speech this morning. I'm watching the presser right now. First up the Sheriff of Vice.

Dancing in the blood of innocents. So what else is new? Hammering on emotions. "Moral obligation to do something". This looks bad. "Cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Oh no. Colin Goddard is being trotted out. What simpering tools are they.

The President. This should be good. I feel just a little sick.

The Tyrant has kids there for the classic propaganda picture. Invoking 'For the children." "Their voices should compel us to change".

"We can't put this off any longer." Talking about the Taft shooting. 900 killed with a gun in the last month. Wonder where those stats came from and how close they are to reality. "If there is even one thing we can  do...One life that can be saved...I am going to do my part". Going to sign executive orders. Mental Health/CDC. Violent video games. 23 executive orders. Calling on Congress to pass proposals.

Universal background checks. Including private sales. Calls it common sense. (That's not on the '23' list, just what he wants Congress to do)

Calling for Congressional bans on EBRs and more than 10 round magazines. "Pump out as many bullets as quickly as possible". Invoking Reagan again. Man, does the left love to do that. Ban EBR manufacture. Wants confirmation of Todd Jones as BATFE director. The "Hunters and Sportsman" dodge again.

He's actually being kinda vague about what he's specifically going to do here. Talking a lot about Congress. Kicking the ball to them so when very little of what he wants gets passed they get the blame I suppose. He's doing a lot of bloviating. It's a rah rah speech designed to reach the emotional and his base. He's setting up Congress and the NRA to take the heat. "The most important changes we can make depend on Congressional action".

Basically daring Congress to not do what he wants.

"With rights come responsibilities". Badly wants the Congress to do his dirty work. Hypocritically talking about religious freedom while imposing religious limitations through health care. What a tool.

More emotional appeals. "We must act now. Let's do the right thing".

Very empty speech. Little real action. Signing the executive orders with the kids as a background then hugs them. Stalin would be so proud of the President for that.

It was a campaign speech. Seems like he's going to do basically nothing but issue meaningless presidential orders and calls for others to do what he knows they won't do. I don't have the whole list of the "Executive Actions" but it seems to include greater enforcement of existing laws and calls for studies on causes of violence and pushes for Congress to "Do Something". Bret Baier seems surprised there wasn't more.

That speech was a big, fat nothing. It was an emotional appeal for Americans to pressure Congress into violating the Second Amendment. I'm guessing the Dems in the House and Senate told him a few realities about what happened after 1994 and that they're unwilling to take that ride under the bus. He's going to throw them there after he doesn't get what he wants anyway so I'm not really sure what anyone with a D after their names expects from him.

Fox went immediately to Debt Ceiling talk within minutes of the end of the speech so....I guess that's that. The left has got to be either disappointed or livid over what he didn't do. He didn't ban imports as far as I can tell. Someone correct me if I missed that. No new gun control laws by fiat.

I found a list of the 23 "Presidential Actions" here. Check out number 18.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Heh heh. I guess reality jumped up and bit someone on the ass. Better late than never I suppose.

So that's it. No 'Earth shattering Kaboom'. I'm going to go surfing just to see the wailing and gnashing of leftist teeth over this because as far as I can tell That Guy has opted to punt and play defense. Nothing we feared was included and he even gave lip service to the Constitution. That's only CYA to be sure but at least he gave a nod to the Bill of Rights. I'm more than a bit relieved though Borepatch so totally called this. I bow to the master.

Of course there's still the squishies in Congress but right now I'm feeling a lot more secure. Congress we can handle.

I'm sure others both smarter and more informed than I will have lots more on this but I wanted to watch the thing in real time and put out what initial information I could ( Update: Bob Owens weighs in). Bottom line? That Guy just squatted down and made grunting noises but instead of squeezing out a steaming pile he just produced an odorous cloud. The problem for the anti gun left is that the president gave elected democrats (and republicans for that matter) an opening to cave on this issue and they're going to be under a lot of pressure from their constituents to do precisely that.

Be grateful for small favors I suppose.

Six

You're Not The Boss Of Me

I was considering the gun control debate yesterday as I was working on the kids room. I find that working with my hands is wonderful for freeing my mind to wander and consider. What I pondered was this.

The thing  that has struck me most is the idea that the current debate and doom shrieking coming from Democrats (primarily) is basically a smokescreen for taxes and social/defense spending (essentially). Oh, I don't for a second think that the institutional left doesn't want to disarm America. They'll do it in a split second the moment they think they can get away with it. When you consider that way too many 'conservative' Republicans voted for the 1994 AWB, the Affordable Care Act and the recent Fiscal Cliff Bill the idea that another AWB in some form might very well pass the House today isn't too far fetched. Whatever your take on his ruling (traitor or mad genius) Chief Justice Roberts' vote on the Constitutionality of obamacare makes me weak in the knees where a new gun control act is concerned. Heller and MacDonald notwithstanding.

Still, the Democrat rope-a-dope strategy idea has some merit. Pay no attention to the man behind the podium as it were. But even if so what do we do?

America is a unique country. Certainly in the modern world but it can even be argued that it is without peer in all of mankind's history. I'm not insulting any other country but the level of our individual liberties compared to anywhere else cannot be denied. The idea that you can have a country ruled by a Constitution that limits government and maximizes individual liberty. It's a powerful concept. Of course the Progressives, Socialists and yes, Communists have been chipping away at us for a century of more. There have been hiccups, problems and not a few dangers. Obama is certainly to be counted among the latter but he's hardly the first is he? A century and a half ago we had a nation divided and warring with itself. Both sides were Constitutionally flawed. One over State's Rights and the other that whole "All men are created equal" thing. We found out that living free is hard. It takes a certain kind of person to not just live in a free nation but to want to live as freely as possible. We may be less so than we were two centuries ago but we remain a free people.

The current problem is we seem to have a surfeit of folks who don't really want to live free at all. They like State control and want everyone else to like it as much as they do. Those who don't cherish liberty will never be convinced to a different point of view. But are they really now the majority? I don't think so and the current gun control atmosphere has convinced me they are in fact the minority.

The gun control argument isn't about children or safety or needs. It's about whether or not one wants to be truly free. The argument that other western countries have lower levels of gun crime is a non issue. I stipulate that this is so but it changes nothing. As I said America is Unique. The rules that apply elsewhere and to others doesn't apply here and to us. In all the world America is solitary in it's recognition of individual liberties above he needs of the State or indeed even the majority of her citizens. But the fly in that ointment is where the lines are drawn. In America those lines are as small as anywhere in the world. Yes, even now.

For instance. I keep getting the Fire In A Theater argument from my gun control supporting acquaintances. The idea that one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater as proof that if there are limits on the First Amendment so restrictions on the Second must also be legal. My argument? That is a false analogy and breaks down in the face of careful consideration. I can go this very day to the local movie house and have a conversation with my wife where the word fire is used often and with great enthusiasm and all without breaking the law.

"When we get home I am so going to FIRE up the grill and char some dead animal flesh."
"So I told the guy don't FIRE until your sight alignment and sight picture are perfect."
"In case the theater catches on FIRE the exits are there and there. We'll take the nearest one that is furthest from the flames."

You get the idea. It's not the word FIRE that's the problem but the usage, the context of the conversation and the intent of the speaker that makes it's utterance a crime. Likewise standing up and shouting "FLOOD" at the top of your lungs whilst running in circles, flapping your arms and wailing about not wanting to die in a torrent might also end up with you in the hoosegow with a date before the bar of justice. The actual word FIRE has little to do with it.

The whole gun control brouhaha is of a similar stripe. It's not the object it's the context, usage and intent that matter. Those things are reserved to persons and not objects. Here in America we understand that and if what I'm hearing and reading from others around the world is accurate more people than just Americans have a firm grasp on that concept as well. As goes America so goes pretty much everybody else.

We're different here. In spite of generations of public school indoctrination how many times have you heard a child say "You're not the boss of me!"? How many times have you said that or at least thought it yourself? That's because we still get our concepts of personal liberty and freedom with our very mother's milk. It's inculcated into the mind of virtually every child from the age of reason and isn't totally beaten out of our heads no matter which Ivy League school we attend. Here's an interesting bit of data. Check out this post and the graph over at Bob Owens' place. Democrats as the fastest growing gun buying demographic? Gotta love that but it points out a common fallacy. That a tipping point in personal freedom has been reached and those who are ready to surrender their liberties for free stuff now outnumber those of us who won't. It's slander and calumny that grows no truer with the repeating. More on the dole, clamoring for handouts and bailouts and all manner of social spending? Absolutely but go into just about any neighborhood in any city in the country and start shouting orders and see what happens. You'll be lucky if "You're not the boss of me" is all you hear. No matter who utters them, the idea behind those words is timeless. "I am no one's servant." That thought gives me hope. Rugged individualism may be a dying concept (though I don't think so and probably never will) but it's not dead yet. Not by a long shot. Those "You're not the boss of me" folks, even the ones who vote D and are in favor of all things liberal, are the very ones now buying up military pattern semi automatic firearms, their accoutrements and ammunition by the job lots. That hardly bespeaks of a population who hungers for chains.

The Constitution is a set of trip wires planted by the Founding Fathers. Tin cans filled with gravel and tied across liberties trail with string. Ready to warn of the impending arrival of unwanted visitors of hostile intent. Many rattled years, decades, even centuries ago. Some much more recently. But in all cases patriots have responded and the country has recovered. They have done the equivalent of shouting into the darkness "HALT! Who goes there? I'm warning you, I have a gun and I'll shoot you if you come any closer." When it comes to guns we have won victory after victory with Heller, MacDonald and Illinois just the latest. The 94 AWB expired because no one had the temerity to actively and rigorously attempt to enact a new version.

Until now.

I am so proud of the gun rights community. By and large they have fought tooth and nail against the latest attempts at incursions on the Second Amendment. Remember that Paul Revere wasn't alone. He was acting in concert with his fellow patriots in responding to the threats they faced. We are no different. Paul's spiritual ancestors can be found all over the media, new and old, espousing the same messages and warnings he did. "Peril is incipient. Arise and make haste. This far and no further." The gunnies have risen to the challenge and responded magnificently. I can't even link due to the sheer amount of posts, articles and letters sent. It's astounding and gratifying. It may very well be, as some have suggested (including me), that this attempt at gun control is no more than cover for other nefarious schemes and doomed to ultimate failure. I sincerely hope so but only a fool or a desperate man wagers the liberty of his children on a hope. Now is not the time to lessen either the pressure or the rhetoric. We must treat the current crop of gun banners as if they are making their last ditch, all or nothing, take no prisoners final grab for our liberties because they just might be. All other fights, fiscal, social, whatever pale to insignificance next to this battle for a basic human right. Either we are an armed nation or we are servants, obedient to those who are "The bosses of us all."

No enemy is ever defeated until he surrenders his sword or his crushed remains lay at your feet. The foes of freedom are implacable and legion. They will never surrender. Never admit defeat. Never stop. Vigilance and overwhelming force are the only responses available to We The People and we must never cede the battleground. Ever.

Six

Bob Costas Calls For End Of Car Culture

A tragedy occurred this morning as another life was senselessly ended by an intoxicated driver. You can read the story here. The driver and deceased passenger were both football players for the Dallas Cowboys. The driver was apparently impaired. This is truly a sad and horrific time for two families and our hearts and prayers go out to all affected.

However.

Luckily for all of us two sports reporters were immediately on the story and have rendered us the benefit of their extensive and exhaustive expertise on the issue of accident fatalities.

When he heard the news Bob Costas immediately decried the "Car Culture" and stated that there was no doubt in his mind that if only that player had not possessed a motor vehicle his teammate would surely be alive.

Jason Whitlock called the AAA the modern KKK of the blacktop. "America’s Car Culture is out of control, dangerous and a threat to our liberty."

We all know that the evil Car Owners and their paid mouthpieces will never voluntarily give up their overly powerful 4 wheeled instruments of death. No one needs a car with enough horsepower to kill large numbers of other motorists with a single acceleration. We must have a national conversation on common sense car control. Anyone can buy dangerous cars through the unregulated Used Car Cartels and uncontrolled private sellers which allows even felons and those with prior DUI arrests easy access to these instruments of death. No background checks are required which means that even those who have a history of mental imbalance can drive on the streets of America. Where our children walk and play every day. For crying out loud even people with no drivers licenses are allowed to buy an car with which they can mow down the unsuspecting citizens with no limits. The founding fathers never intended for such powerful instruments to be in the hands of the general population. If you want to get from place to place do as they did and get a horse.

Thank our lucky stars that we have these two stalwarts of safety and reasonableness to shepherd us through these difficult times. Thank you Bob and Jason for your even handed and unbiased reporting. What would we do without you?

Six

I Haven't Murdered Anyone

To Bob Costas and the rest of those who are dancing in the blood of the innocent, again.

I didn't murder anyone today. Or yesterday. Or the day before that on back to the day of my birth. And yet I've been a gun owner since my early twenties and handled/fired guns since I was a boy. I will never murder anyone because I'm not an Evil Murderous Bastard.

I have never even been tempted to murder the mother of my child. And yet I have been a gun owner virtually all of our married lives.

I have never been tempted to commit suicide with one of my guns in spite of some difficult times in my life. Shooting yourself in front of witnesses says a lot about their mindset and precious little about the solutions to mental illness and depression. I have handled such scenes in my professional life and they always left me with the firm conviction that they were more about the narcissism of the suicide than their inner turmoil. My mother committed suicide with a gun but I don't blame the tool and I don't blame society. I understand that choices are personal and the responsibility for those choices resides with the individual.

I have used a gun in my professional life to defend my life and the lives of others. Without having to fire a shot as it turned out. Yet the very presence of my gun and my willingness to use it has de-escalated more than one violent encounter. Multiply that by a few million times and you get an idea of the value of an armed society.

I have never murdered anyone and yet have seen many in my life. Most were committed by means other than a firearm and yet all were horrific, violent and tragic. The presence or lack of a gun means nothing. Dead is dead.

I have never committed violence against my wife or child and yet I saw it virtually every day of my professional life. Almost exclusively perpetrated by men. That doesn't mean all men are violent brutes but it does mean that if you're a woman or a child and the man in your life decides to become violent with you your chances of being hurt or killed are lessened if you have the means to defend yourself and guaranteed if you don't. Kindly spare me the woman beats up man anecdotes. They are the exception not the rule.

Evil walks the face of the Earth and it takes many forms. Even that of a supposed loved one. Murder is evil. Period. A woman is dead, her child orphaned and her murderer dead by his own hand in front of witnesses who had at least friendly feelings toward him. That makes the murderer (I for one refuse to utter his name anywhere) Evil. I keep hearing tragic and sad and 'in his memory' but what I'm not hearing is Monster and Murderer and 'screw that evil bastard'. Why is that? Because a gun was used. Dead is dead and murder is murder. It's the intent and the result, not the weapon.

Many objects can be used to commit evil or good but that depends wholly on the intentions of the person doing the committing. It is not my fault nor the fault of any other law abiding gun owner what the evil ones do with a gun. Just like it's not every motorists fault what an Evil Bastard tanked up on legal intoxicants does behind the wheel of a 4000 pound ground missile.

I keep hearing the gun control activists say some variation of the theme that for the greater good of society we need to give up on the idea of individual liberty and hence the Second Amendment. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It's the survival of the state and not the individual. That may be arguably correct but it's certainly 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If logic were followed and the needs of the many were actually the desired result then every adult would be required to go around armed because such societies, as new studies are constantly showing, are safer for everyone, especially the weakest members. If more CCWs means less crime then if we were truly a logical and caring society, shooting and gun handling would be taught in school and permits would be unnecessary because open and concealed carry would be expected and encouraged. Even societally mandated.

There is no such thing as a gun culture. That's just jargon invented by folks who believe that no one really has a right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. It's a buzz phrase used by ignorant journalists to cover for the fact that they're too lazy or too prejudiced to do any real investigation. There is a Self Defense and Constitutional Rights culture. They're called normal, everyday Americans. 

I didn't murder anyone. Where are the lurid headlines? I have guns and ammunition and shooting skills and yet no one cares that I did not shoot anyone. I'm a lawful, tax paying, gun owning citizen. When is my interview? I'll even wear a suit.

My right to possess and carry a gun isn't dependent on what anyone else has done with one. I am an individual not a statistical member of a demographic subset.

The NRA isn't the KKK but if you want to point that particular finger liberal Democrats are definitely close family. If you don't believe me then talk to poor blacks living in inner city gun free zones and ask them about their quality of life. Try Chicago first. The NRA wants to empower everyone and acknowledge their individuality and basic human rights. The Liberal KKK wants everyone to live in shooting galleries where the only ones with guns are the criminals and the state who, heroic individual members notwithstanding, has no duty to protect anyone. Do an internet search for Woodrow Wilson, Orval Faubus or George Wallace some time if you want to see who the real racists are and understand that gun control is just another word for people control.  The modern progressive is nothing more than Wilson with an I-Pad and a Prius.

I haven't murdered anyone and it's not because my guns are somehow nicer than other peoples. They're not possessed by some magical pixies who are warm and fuzzy as opposed to the magical pixies inhabiting other guns that are dark and violent. It's because I'm not an evil murderous bastard. That's why.

Evil  murderous bastards are everywhere and they always will be. No law, no War On Evil Bastards will ever change that. It's as much a part of human nature as Heroism in the face of danger. Evil bastards are evil and in most cases nothing but death will ever cure them of that particular malady. It's not the gun that kills, it's the evil bastard who wields it who kills. Just like they kill with hands, cars, knives, frigging bathtubs and most anything you care to name off. Anyone who wants to engage me in a gun control debate can start by acknowledging that fact and go from there. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Please stop celebrating the Evil Bastards and using each and every instance of their murderous insanity to push your Collectivist, Progressive, Hive Minded agenda. It's offensive and only serves to convince me and others like me that your real goal ends in chains and death for the bulk of mankind while you continue to live in palaces, surrounded by security denied to the rest of us.

I see no real difference between those who commit atrocities and those who use them for their own political purposes. Both of you are Evil Bastards.

Six

Apparently Capital One Thinks An Image Of A Gun Is Socially Unacceptable Or Discriminatory

I was visiting with my buddy Bruce today, talking guns and prices. Bruce is the owner of OFS Tactical and he's been helping me out by selling a few of my no longer needed/wanted firearms. As we were discussing the latest batch I left him he dropped this nice little hoplophobic number on me.

He is in the process of obtaining a company credit card from Capital One. He sent in his information and the image he wanted displayed. It's his company logo. It's an M4 in black silhouette with his company name, OFS Tactical below. They sent this in response.

	Sorry, we were unable to approve  the image you submitted Sorry the image you submitted for your Capital One® Image CardSM has been rejected. We will not approve any images that contain the following: Socially unacceptable or discriminatory behavior, signs or statements (e.g. gangs, hatred, drugs/alcohol abuse, tobacco, graffiti, or illegal firearms use) If you believe that you have been declined in error, please call us at 1-866-381-0451. Please visit www.capitalone.com/imagecard to upload a new image.

Please note the reasons given for denial. Bruce sent this right back. (Note: As most of you know I am a Luddite so I'm re-typing this from the PDF Bruce sent to me instead of copying and pasting. I'm not leaving anything out except for some images and not adding anything in.)


This card image I selected is my logo for my company and been since April of 2009. I am a federally licensed dealer of firearms and sell to the UNITED STATES MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT and 28 agencies of the Government.





My company advocates for the freedom of the Second Amendment and SAFE USE AND HANDLING of firearms. We are a family of veterans who have fought and died for your individual rights and FREEDOMS, please don't take ours away. The simple image of a firearm in no way, shape or form infringes on "Socially unacceptable or discriminatory behavior, signs or statements (e.g. gangs, hatred, drugs/alcohol abuse, tobacco, graffiti, or illegal firearms use) and if you feel so inclined to make that argument I would like you to explain Vikings running through a village, pillaging and wielding battle axes and swords. What's in your wallet?

(Here Bruce included two captured images from the Capital One ads showing the rampaging Vikings)


I like Capital One but the political correctness must stop and I implore you to reconsider your initial judgement. I am prepared to take this argument as far as needs be; NRA, FOX News, Blogs, Second Amendment rights activists, YouTube, etc. And I have a pretty good my military and law enforcement buddies nation wide will support me by boycotting your fine establishment.


Now Bruce and OFS Tactical are a classic small business, really it's just him, trying to make his mark and maybe enough money to pay the bills. But the size of the dog is irrelevant. What Capital One is in essence saying is that the very image of a gun (and thereby all guns themselves) is so offensive that they refuse to allow a company logo credit card to show one. The language they used left me indignant to the point of anger and perhaps the use of some bad language. Socially unacceptable behavior, signs or statements. Wow. Just Wow.

So here's my response to Capital One, which I will be sending after I've finished this post along with a link for their perusal. Please feel free to let them know how you feel in comments.

Dear Capital One:

I was recently made aware of your rejection of the image of a legal firearm on an Image Card credit card for OFS Tactical. Your stated reason was the following;

Socially unacceptable or discriminatory behavior, signs or statements (e.g. gangs, hatred, drugs/alcohol abuse, tobacco, graffiti, or illegal firearms use)

What I find offensive and discriminatory is your rejection of the image for no more reason than that you don't like it. The simple image of a legal firearm is no more socially unacceptable that a sword or a battle ax which I believe you are more than happy to show in your commercials. Even when in the hands of a child. A weapon is a weapon and is no more dangerous than the hand that wields it. If a company or individual are law abiding and the image is not one of violence and mayhem (that's a subtle hint right there. Did you get it?) then a shadow image of the weapon that has secured freedom for more people than any other in mankind's history is not unacceptable or discriminatory except in the close minded. I am not a Capital One customer at this time nor will I ever be if this is your stance. I am also a veteran and a retired police officer who runs a modest little blog and who is going to shout to the internet and anyone who will listen as to your actions. I urge you to reconsider and work with the owner of OFS tactical to resolve this issue. I have written about this incident. I am including a link to that post. We firearm owners are neither stupid nor non-discretionary. We have funds to spend and credit cards to use and we are very aware of who is actively opposing the lawful exercise of our rights and who is not. It's your company and you can certainly run it any way you see fit but it's our money and we can handle it the same way. And, somehow, I doubt very much that this is the first time such has occurred.

What's in your wallet indeed.

Sincerely
Six

Please Carry

The anti 2A folks must be proud of themselves today after watching this video. I mean it's much better that she didn't have the means to defend herself against a violent thug rather than being safe. Better to let him have what he wants rather than shoot and possibly kill him. Right? Except that what he wanted was her and she's now missing after being beaten and thrown into his car.

If you're a member of the disarmament crowd this is indeed your fault. Yours. Step up and take credit.



From the story;
In this surveillance video, the man police are seeking is seen knocking down a woman who had just exited a LIRR train. The two then exchanged words inside a shop before he forced her to leave the store. Once outside, he again knocked her down and dragged her off camera. According to witnesses, after the video ends, the man placed the victim over his shoulder and threw her in the back seat of a nearby car against her will. The suspect then drove away in the direction of the Long Island Expressway.

Please carry. If all you have is a .22 then that's all you have but please carry it and use it if you must. That woman's life is important as is yours and all the panty wadding and hand wringing by those who wish to control all aspects of our lives and put us in the hands of the violent and deranged is just a cover for an ongoing war on freedom. Don't fall for it. The casual person on the street cannot be counted on to preserve your life in a crisis. It does happen but all too often they'll pass by without a thought to intervene. You are the final arbiter of your fate and don't ever forget it.

A prayer goes out to that woman. May she be found alive and may her attacker pay the penalty. Preferably terminally.

Six

HS822

Murphy's Law has the write up but it passed the house. It needs to be brought to an up or down vote in the Senate so if passed will go to obama's desk. If nothing else it'll make the antigun senators and the President show their true colors. ML has including a vote list. Go RTWT.
Six

Miguel On Gun Control

Miguel over at The Gun Free Zone has been on a roll lately, dragging out the lies and distortions of the coalition to stop gun violence into the light of day. It's a series of posts (and I hope there are many more coming) but this is a good place to start.

The narrative from the anti gun crowd has taken on an interesting twist. The brave are unarmed. It's an insidious little lie that may well cost easily swayed dupes their lives and Miguel's been doing a good job calling them on it.

Keep up the skeer Miguel.

Six

Carrying

Brigid is more than just a talented writer, she gets it and can explain it in a way that the rest of us can only admire. In this post she gets to the heart of why we carry. I can't recommend it enough, especially if you're female or have loved ones who are.

Thanks Brigid. For Lu and The DO and my granddaughter.

Six

Reason or Force, Great Logic

A good friend of mine in Wy, sent this to me; he and I agree that it makes a lot of sense.

It was written by Marko Kloos over at The Munchkin Wrangler.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason or force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or Force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat---it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong,and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even and armed one can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gum makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists,bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the guns makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equal armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Thank You


This preceding information just makes perfect sense to me. I hope you can benefit by it as I did.

Sarge